Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer: a simulation model

Cancer diagnostic tools to aid decision-making in primary care: mixed-methods systematic reviews and cost-effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Tools based on diagnostic prediction models are available to help general practitioners diagnose cancer. It is unclear whether or not tools expedite diagnosis or affect patient quality of life and/or survival.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were to evaluate the evidence on the validation, clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness, and availability and use of cancer diagnostic tools in primary care.

METHODS

Two systematic reviews were conducted to examine the clinical effectiveness (review 1) and the development, validation and accuracy (review 2) of diagnostic prediction models for aiding general practitioners in cancer diagnosis. Bibliographic searches were conducted on MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) in May 2017, with updated searches conducted in November 2018. A decision-analytic model explored the tools' clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in colorectal cancer. The model compared patient outcomes and costs between strategies that included the use of the tools and those that did not, using the NHS perspective. We surveyed 4600 general practitioners in randomly selected UK practices to determine the proportions of general practices and general practitioners with access to, and using, cancer decision support tools. Association between access to these tools and practice-level cancer diagnostic indicators was explored.

RESULTS

Systematic review 1 - five studies, of different design and quality, reporting on three diagnostic tools, were included. We found no evidence that using the tools was associated with better outcomes. Systematic review 2 - 43 studies were included, reporting on prediction models, in various stages of development, for 14 cancer sites (including multiple cancers). Most studies relate to QCancer® (ClinRisk Ltd, Leeds, UK) and risk assessment tools.

DECISION MODEL

In the absence of studies reporting their clinical outcomes, QCancer and risk assessment tools were evaluated against faecal immunochemical testing. A linked data approach was used, which translates diagnostic accuracy into time to diagnosis and treatment, and stage at diagnosis. Given the current lack of evidence, the model showed that the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools in colorectal cancer relies on demonstrating patient survival benefits. Sensitivity of faecal immunochemical testing and specificity of QCancer and risk assessment tools in a low-risk population were the key uncertain parameters.

SURVEY

Practitioner- and practice-level response rates were 10.3% (476/4600) and 23.3% (227/975), respectively. Cancer decision support tools were available in 83 out of 227 practices (36.6%, 95% confidence interval 30.3% to 43.1%), and were likely to be used in 38 out of 227 practices (16.7%, 95% confidence interval 12.1% to 22.2%). The mean 2-week-wait referral rate did not differ between practices that do and practices that do not have access to QCancer or risk assessment tools (mean difference of 1.8 referrals per 100,000 referrals, 95% confidence interval -6.7 to 10.3 referrals per 100,000 referrals).

LIMITATIONS

There is little good-quality evidence on the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of diagnostic tools. Many diagnostic prediction models are limited by a lack of external validation. There are limited data on current UK practice and clinical outcomes of diagnostic strategies, and there is no evidence on the quality-of-life outcomes of diagnostic results. The survey was limited by low response rates.

CONCLUSION

The evidence base on the tools is limited. Research on how general practitioners interact with the tools may help to identify barriers to implementation and uptake, and the potential for clinical effectiveness.

FUTURE WORK

Continued model validation is recommended, especially for risk assessment tools. Assessment of the tools' impact on time to diagnosis and treatment, stage at diagnosis, and health outcomes is also recommended, as is further work to understand how tools are used in general practitioner consultations.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42017068373 and CRD42017068375.

FUNDING

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 66. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Critical Analysis of Markov Models Used for the Economic Evaluation of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The economic evaluation of colorectal cancer screening is challenging because of the need to model the underlying unobservable natural history of the disease.

OBJECTIVES

To describe the available Markov models and to critically analyze their main structural assumptions.

METHODS

A systematic search was performed in eight relevant databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Econlit, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database, Health Economic Evaluations Database, Health Technology Assessment database, Cost-Effective Analysis Registry, and European Network of Health Economics Evaluation Databases), identifying 34 models that met the inclusion criteria. A comparative analysis of model structure and parameterization was conducted using two checklists and guidelines for cost-effectiveness screening models.

RESULTS

Two modeling techniques were identified. One strategy used a Markov model to reproduce the natural history of the disease and an overlaying model that reproduced the screening process, whereas the other used a single model to represent a screening program. Most of the studies included only adenoma-carcinoma sequences, a few included de novo cancer, and none included the serrated pathway. Parameterization of adenoma dwell time, sojourn time, and surveillance differed between studies, and there was a lack of validation and statistical calibration against local epidemiological data. Most of the studies analyzed failed to perform an adequate literature review and synthesis of diagnostic accuracy properties of the screening tests modeled.

CONCLUSIONS

Several strategies to model colorectal cancer screening have been developed, but many challenges remain to adequately represent the natural history of the disease and the screening process. Structural uncertainty analysis could be a useful strategy for understanding the impact of the assumptions of different models on cost-effectiveness results.

Estimating the Effect of Targeted Screening Strategies: An Application to Colonoscopy and Colorectal Cancer

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Screening behavior depends on previous screening history and family members’ behaviors, which can act as both confounders and intermediate variables on a causal pathway from screening to disease risk. Conventional analyses that adjust for these variables can lead to incorrect inferences about the causal effect of screening if high-risk individuals are more likely to be screened. Analyzing the data in a manner that treats screening as randomized conditional on covariates allows causal parameters to be estimated; inverse probability weighting based on propensity of exposure scores is one such method considered here. I simulated family data under plausible models for the underlying disease process and for screening behavior to assess the performance of alternative methods of analysis and whether a targeted screening approach based on individuals’ risk factors would lead to a greater reduction in cancer incidence in the population than a uniform screening policy. Simulation results indicate that there can be a substantial underestimation of the effect of screening on subsequent cancer risk when using conventional analysis approaches, which is avoided by using inverse probability weighting. A large case–control study of colonoscopy and colorectal cancer from Germany shows a strong protective effect of screening, but inverse probability weighting makes this effect even stronger. Targeted screening approaches based on either fixed risk factors or family history yield somewhat greater reductions in cancer incidence with fewer screens needed to prevent one cancer than population-wide approaches, but the differences may not be large enough to justify the additional effort required. See video abstract at, http://links.lww.com/EDE/B207.

Modeling the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA)

Several colorectal cancer (CRC) screening models have been developed describing the progression of adenomas to CRC. Currently, there is increasing evidence that serrated lesions can also develop into CRC. It is not clear whether screening tests have the same test characteristics for serrated lesions as for adenomas, but lower sensitivities have been suggested. Models that ignore this type of colorectal lesions may provide overly optimistic predictions of the screen-induced reduction in CRC incidence. To address this issue, we have developed the Adenoma and Serrated pathway to Colorectal CAncer (ASCCA) model that includes the adenoma-carcinoma pathway and the serrated pathway to CRC as well as characteristics of colorectal lesions. The model structure and the calibration procedure are described in detail. Calibration resulted in 19 parameter sets for the adenoma-carcinoma pathway and 13 for the serrated pathway that match the age- and sex-specific adenoma and serrated lesion prevalence in the COlonoscopy versus COlonography Screening (COCOS) trial, Dutch CRC incidence and mortality rates, and a number of other intermediate outcomes concerning characteristics of colorectal lesions. As an example, we simulated outcomes for a biennial fecal immunochemical test screening program and a hypothetical one-time colonoscopy screening program. Inclusion of the serrated pathway influenced the predicted effectiveness of screening when serrated lesions are associated with lower screening test sensitivity or when they are not removed. To our knowledge, this is the first model that explicitly includes the serrated pathway and characteristics of colorectal lesions. It is suitable for the evaluation of the (cost)effectiveness of potential screening strategies for CRC.

A simulation model of colorectal cancer surveillance and recurrence

Background

Approximately one-third of those treated curatively for colorectal cancer (CRC) will experience recurrence. No evidence-based consensus exists on how best to follow patients after initial treatment to detect asymptomatic recurrence. Here, a new approach for simulating surveillance and recurrence among CRC survivors is outlined, and development and calibration of a simple model applying this approach is described. The model’s ability to predict outcomes for a group of patients under a specified surveillance strategy is validated.

Methods

We developed an individual-based simulation model consisting of two interacting submodels: a continuous-time disease-progression submodel overlain by a discrete-time Markov submodel of surveillance and re-treatment. In the former, some patients develops recurrent disease which probabilistically progresses from detectability to unresectability, and which may produce early symptoms leading to detection independent of surveillance testing. In the latter submodel, patients undergo user-specified surveillance testing regimens. Parameters describing disease progression were preliminarily estimated through calibration to match five-year disease-free survival, overall survival at years 1–5, and proportion of recurring patients undergoing curative salvage surgery from one arm of a published randomized trial. The calibrated model was validated by examining its ability to predict these same outcomes for patients in a different arm of the same trial undergoing less aggressive surveillance.

Results

Calibrated parameter values were consistent with generally observed recurrence patterns. Sensitivity analysis suggested probability of curative salvage surgery was most influenced by sensitivity of carcinoembryonic antigen assay and of clinical interview/examination (i.e. scheduled provider visits). In validation, the model accurately predicted overall survival (59% predicted, 58% observed) and five-year disease-free survival (55% predicted, 53% observed), but was less accurate in predicting curative salvage surgery (10% predicted; 6% observed).

Conclusions

Initial validation suggests the feasibility of this approach to modeling alternative surveillance regimens among CRC survivors. Further calibration to individual-level patient data could yield a model useful for predicting outcomes of specific surveillance strategies for risk-based subgroups or for individuals. This approach could be applied toward developing novel, tailored strategies for further clinical study. It has the potential to produce insights which will promote more effective surveillance—leading to higher cure rates for recurrent CRC.

Prevention, screening and treatment of colorectal cancer: a global and regional generalized cost effectiveness analysis

BACKGROUND

Regional generalized cost-effectiveness estimates of prevention, screening and treatment interventions for colorectal cancer are presented.

METHODS

Standardised WHO-CHOICE methodology was used. A colorectal cancer model was employed to provide estimates of screening and treatment effectiveness. Intervention effectiveness was determined via a population state-transition model (PopMod) that simulates the evolution of a sub-regional population accounting for births, deaths and disease epidemiology. Economic costs of procedures and treatment were estimated, including programme overhead and training costs.

RESULTS

In regions characterised by high income, low mortality and high existing treatment coverage, the addition of screening to the current high treatment levels is very cost-effective, although no particular intervention stands out in cost-effectiveness terms relative to the others.In regions characterised by low income, low mortality with existing treatment coverage around 50%, expanding treatment with or without screening is cost-effective or very cost-effective. Abandoning treatment in favour of screening (no treatment scenario) would not be cost effective.In regions characterised by low income, high mortality and low treatment levels, the most cost-effective intervention is expanding treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

From a cost-effectiveness standpoint, screening programmes should be expanded in developed regions and treatment programmes should be established for colorectal cancer in regions with low treatment coverage.

Calibration methods used in cancer simulation models and suggested reporting guidelines

Increasingly, computer simulation models are used for economic and policy evaluation in cancer prevention and control. A model's predictions of key outcomes, such as screening effectiveness, depend on the values of unobservable natural history parameters. Calibration is the process of determining the values of unobservable parameters by constraining model output to replicate observed data. Because there are many approaches for model calibration and little consensus on best practices, we surveyed the literature to catalogue the use and reporting of these methods in cancer simulation models. We conducted a MEDLINE search (1980 through 2006) for articles on cancer-screening models and supplemented search results with articles from our personal reference databases. For each article, two authors independently abstracted pre-determined items using a standard form. Data items included cancer site, model type, methods used for determination of unobservable parameter values and description of any calibration protocol. All authors reached consensus on items of disagreement. Reviews and non-cancer models were excluded. Articles describing analytical models, which estimate parameters with statistical approaches (e.g. maximum likelihood) were catalogued separately. Models that included unobservable parameters were analysed and classified by whether calibration methods were reported and if so, the methods used. The review process yielded 154 articles that met our inclusion criteria and, of these, we concluded that 131 may have used calibration methods to determine model parameters. Although the term 'calibration' was not always used, descriptions of calibration or 'model fitting' were found in 50% (n = 66) of the articles, with an additional 16% (n = 21) providing a reference to methods. Calibration target data were identified in nearly all of these articles. Other methodological details, such as the goodness-of-fit metric, were discussed in 54% (n = 47 of 87) of the articles reporting calibration methods, while few details were provided on the algorithms used to search the parameter space. Our review shows that the use of cancer simulation modelling is increasing, although thorough descriptions of calibration procedures are rare in the published literature for these models. Calibration is a key component of model development and is central to the validity and credibility of subsequent analyses and inferences drawn from model predictions. To aid peer-review and facilitate discussion of modelling methods, we propose a standardized Calibration Reporting Checklist for model documentation.

Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer: evidence from the Nottingham faecal occult blood trial

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the cost-effectiveness of faecal occult blood (FOB) screening for colorectal cancer within the Nottingham trial.

SETTING

A randomised controlled trial (1981-present) of 153,000 subjects, of whom approximately half were offered biennial FOB testing over up to five screening rounds.

METHODS

The additional costs of participation in screening relative to symptomatic presentation were calculated by combining the results of (i) a comprehensive audit of resource use on the part of subjects within the trial, (ii) previously-established unit costs for each of the procedures involved. Life expectancy gains were estimated from a survival analysis of those trial subjects who had been diagnosed with cancer (screening participants vs controls).

RESULTS

The cost of screening under the Nottingham trial protocol was pound 5290 per cancer detected (at 2002 prices). Under conservative assumptions, the incremental cost per life year gained as a result of screening was pound 1584 (Confidence Interval [CI]:717 to 8612).

A simulation model for evaluating the medical and economic outcomes of screening strategies for colorectal cancer

Mathematical models have been shown to be useful in predicting the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening programmes. We designed a computer macro-simulation model aimed at predicting the cost-effectiveness of alternative colorectal cancer screening strategies. This model was built to determine the cost-effectiveness of a biennial screening programme using the Hemoccult test in Burgundy (France). It was validated with data from the Danish randomized study. Estimates of our model showed an extremely close concordance with observed results in the Danish study. The observed mortality reduction was 18.0% and the estimated mortality reduction was 18.4%. Preliminary data from the Burgundy study predict a 14.6% colorectal cancer mortality reduction after 10 years. Sensitivity analyses were performed with different assumptions regarding the participation rates and the lead-time. This model can serve to assess the cost-effectiveness of a variety of screening modalities.

The limited incorporation of economic analyses in clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Because there is increasing concern that economic data are not used in the clinical guideline development process, our objective was to evaluate the extent to which economic analyses are incorporated in guideline development.

METHODS

We searched medline and HealthSTAR databases to identify English-language clinical practice guidelines (1996-1999) and economic analyses (1990-1998). Additional guidelines were obtained from The National Guidelines Clearinghouse Internet site available at http://www.guideline.gov. Eligible guidelines met the Institute of Medicine definition and addressed a topic included in an economic analysis. Eligible economic analyses assessed interventions addressed in a guideline and predated the guideline by 1 or more years. Economic analyses were defined as incorporated in guideline development if 1) the economic analysis or the results were mentioned in the text or 2) listed as a reference. The quality of economic analyses was assessed using a structured scoring system.

RESULTS

Using guidelines as the unit of analysis, 9 of 35 (26%) incorporated at least 1 economic analysis of above-average quality in the text and 11 of 35 (31%) incorporated at least 1 in the references. Using economic analyses as the unit of analysis, 63 economic analyses of above-average quality had opportunities for incorporation in 198 instances across the 35 guidelines. Economic analyses were incorporated in the text in 13 of 198 instances (7%) and in the references in 18 of 198 instances (9%).

CONCLUSIONS

Rigorous economic analyses may be infrequently incorporated in the development of clinical practice guidelines. A systematic approach to guideline development should be used to ensure the consideration of economic analyses so that recommendations from guidelines may impact both the quality of care and the efficient allocation of resources.

The burden of illness of cancer: economic cost and quality of life

Cancer is a major public health issue and represents a significant burden of disease. In this chapter, we analyze the main measures of burden of disease as relate to cancer. Specifically, we review incidence and mortality, years of life lost from cancer, and cancer prevalence. We also discuss the economic burden of cancer, including cost of illness, phase-specific and long-term costs, and indirect costs. We then examine the impact of cancer on health-related quality of life as measured in global terms (disability-adjusted life years and quality-adjusted life years) and using evaluation-oriented applications of health-related quality of life scales. Throughout, we note the relative strengths and weaknesses of the various approaches to measuring the burden of cancer as well as the methodologic challenges that persist in burden-of-illness research. We conclude with a discussion of the research agenda to improve our understanding of the burden of cancer and of illness more generally.

Cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening for colorectal cancer at various ages

OBJECTIVE

One-time colonoscopy has been recommended as a possible colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategy. Because the incidence of colorectal neoplasia increases with age, the effectiveness and cost of this strategy depend on the age at which screening occurs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the age-dependent cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening.

METHODS

We constructed a computer simulation model of the natural history of colorectal neoplasia. This model was used to compare the cost-utility of no screening and age-based strategies employing one-time colonoscopic screening (age ranges evaluated: 45-49, 50-54, 55-59, and 60-64 yr).

RESULTS

We determined that one-time colonoscopic screening in men age <60 yr and in women age <65 yr dominates never screening and screening at older ages. For both sexes, one-time colonoscopic screening between 50 and 54 yr of age is associated with a marginal cost-utility of less than $10,000 per additional quality-adjusted life-year compared to screening between 55 and 60 yr of age. One-time colonoscopic screening between 45 and 49 yr of age is either dominated (women) or associated with a marginal cost-utility of $69,000/per quality-adjusted life-year (men) compared to screening between 50 and 54 yr of age. The marginal cost-utility of one-time colonoscopic screening is relatively insensitive to plausible changes in the cost of colonoscopy, the cost of CRC treatment, the sensitivity of colonoscopy for colorectal neoplasia, the utility values representing the morbidity associated with the CRC-related health states, and the discount rate.

CONCLUSIONS

One-time colonoscopic screening between 50 and 54 yr of age is cost-effective compared to no screening and screening at older ages in both men and women. Screening in men between 45 and 49 yr of age may be cost-effective compared to screening between 50 and 54 yr of age depending on societal willingness to pay.